Henry Vilas wrote:I didn't see the Rachel Maddow last night, but Burke had her first national interview on the show. The Cap Times reports.

it was a good interview; i think it went well. the debates for the general election theoretically should be interesting -- it could be anywhere from a somewhat clear victory to her mopping the floor with walker, as they say.

I'm curious if that means only 20 people lost their jobs to outsourcing. I read the ruling and it was a bunch of mumble jumble to me. I do think this could be an issue, but more so in the primary than the general election.

Frankly, I think more effort should focus on the Lieutenant Governor position than this one. If Walker does get re-elected, chances are good he'll either bail to chase the Presidency, or the second John Doe proceedings will convince him to spend more time with his family. If that happens, and Kleefisch is still in the second seat....

I would hope not. There's nothing wrong with what Trek did. (Will he though? Probably. That stuff plays well in campaigns. See: Romney, Mitt.)

If it hurts Burke at all though, isn't it a better bet that it's from the left in a Dem primary?

Detritus wrote:Frankly, I think more effort should focus on the Lieutenant Governor position than this one. If Walker does get re-elected, chances are good he'll either bail to chase the Presidency, or the second John Doe proceedings will convince him to spend more time with his family. If that happens, and Kleefisch is still in the second seat....

Well, okay, but WI is a ticket state, as opposed to electing them separately like somewhere like VA or TX. So Walker winning = Kleefisch winning.

“I think it’s got to be an outsider. I think both the presidential and the vice presidential nominee should either be a former or current governor, people who have done successful things in their states, who have taken on big reforms, who are ready to move America forward,” Walker responded when asked by Karl to describe the “ideal Republican presidential candidate in 2016.”

Dave Umhoefer's Politifact article only seems interesting if you ignore Wisconsin's actual long term debt figures, and ignore that Walker borrowed hundreds of millions, threw it in the bank, and deferred state obligations beyond the fiscal year, and basically played a shell game to create a "surplus" that in reality, never existed.

Umhoefer implies that cash accounting is a solid figure even though any accountant can tell you it's not. He also asserts that the manipulated "structural deficit" is a solid figure, even though using his own "Gold Standard" source, the LFB, you can prove that was manipulated too. The LFB records also show that the trade off for the manipulated cash accounting, and structural deficit figures Walker's using, is a greatly increased debt, thus proving Burkes point, which Umhoefer casts doubt on as his central theme.